Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Have They Come for YOU Yet? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (28)	11/9/2003 5:01:36 PM
From: David Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34

Ann, look at it another way for a moment. Protecting domestic producers only serves to keep prices high. And only, it has to be said, in selected politically-sensitive areas. How much sense does this make? If you extend the principle to all US production, of all goods and services, you only magnify the problem, as you find that you have eliminated the need for your industries to be internationally competitive. Which is not a good medium or longterm proposition. You are right, sections of the Australian population are stirred up about exactly the same issues. But here's a question for you: how do you feel about US-owned Australian businesses? A significant slice of Australia's processed food business, for example, is in the hands of US companies. Would you be prepared to lobby for those companies to relinquish their overseas businesses? If so, what would you actually say to them to justify your position? Use Kraft Foods as an example if you like - they own a number of iconic Australian brands, including the legendary Vegemite - how would you phrase your request that they divest themselves of their $8 billion in offshore revenues? International trade works in both directions. Closing your borders to competition is ultimately destructive to the very workers you are trying to protect.